Views of managed care--a survey of students, residents, faculty, and deans at medical schools in the United States.
(1/404)
BACKGROUND AND METHODS: Views of managed care among academic physicians and medical students in the United States are not well known. In 1997, we conducted a telephone survey of a national sample of medical students (506 respondents), residents (494), faculty members (728), department chairs (186), directors of residency training in internal medicine and pediatrics (143), and deans (105) at U.S. medical schools to determine their experiences in and perspectives on managed care. The overall rate of response was 80.1 percent. RESULTS: Respondents rated their attitudes toward managed care on a 0-to-10 scale, with 0 defined as "as negative as possible" and 10 as "as positive as possible." The expressed attitudes toward managed care were negative, ranging from a low mean (+/-SD) score of 3.9+/-1.7 for residents to a high of 5.0+/-1.3 for deans. When asked about specific aspects of care, fee-for-service medicine was rated better than managed care in terms of access (by 80.2 percent of respondents), minimizing ethical conflicts (74.8 percent), and the quality of the doctor-patient relationship (70.6 percent). With respect to the continuity of care, 52.0 percent of respondents preferred fee-for-service medicine, and 29.3 percent preferred managed care. For care at the end of life, 49.1 percent preferred fee-for-service medicine, and 20.5 percent preferred managed care. With respect to care for patients with chronic illness, 41.8 percent preferred fee-for-service care, and 30.8 percent preferred managed care. Faculty members, residency-training directors, and department chairs responded that managed care had reduced the time they had available for research (63.1 percent agreed) and teaching (58.9 percent) and had reduced their income (55.8 percent). Overall, 46.6 percent of faculty members, 26.7 percent of residency-training directors, and 42.7 percent of department chairs reported that the message they delivered to students about managed care was negative. CONCLUSIONS: Negative views of managed care are widespread among medical students, residents, faculty members, and medical school deans. (+info)
The impact of alternative cost recovery schemes on access and equity in Niger.
(2/404)
The authors examine accessibility and the sustainability of quality health care in a rural setting under two alternative cost recovery methods, a fee-for-service method and a type of social financing (risk-sharing) strategy based on an annual tax+fee-for-service. Both methods were accompanied by similar interventions aimed at improving the quality of primary health services. Based on pilot tests of cost recovery in the non-hospital sector in Niger, the article presents results from baseline and final survey data, as well as from facility utilization, cost, and revenue data collected in two test districts and a control district. Cost recovery accompanied by quality improvements increases equity and access to health care and the type of cost recovery method used can make a difference. In Niger, higher access for women, children, and the poor resulted from the tax+fee method, than from the pure fee-for-service method. Moreover, revenue generation per capita under the tax+fee method was two times higher than under the fee-for-service method, suggesting that the prospects of sustainability were better under the social financing strategy. However, sustainability under cost recovery and improved quality depends as much on policy measures aimed at cost containment, particularly for drugs, as on specific cost recovery methods. (+info)
Protecting the poor under cost recovery: the role of means testing.
(3/404)
In African health sectors, the importance of protecting the very poor has been underscored by increased reliance on user fees to help finance services. This paper presents a conceptual framework for understanding the role means testing can play in promoting equity under health care cost recovery. Means testing is placed in the broader context of targeting and contrasted with other mechanisms. Criteria for evaluating outcomes are established and used to analyze previous means testing experience in Africa. A survey of experience finds a general pattern of informal, low-accuracy, low-cost means testing in Africa. Detailed household data from a recent cost recovery experiment in Niger, West Africa, provides an unusual opportunity to observe outcomes of a characteristically informal means testing system. Findings from Niger suggest that achieving both the revenue raising and equity potential of cost recovery in sub-Saharan Africa will require finding ways to improve informal means testing processes. (+info)
Improving quality through cost recovery in Niger.
(4/404)
New evidence on the quality of health care from public services in Niger is discussed in terms of the relationships between quality, costs, cost-effectiveness and financing. Although structural attributes of quality appeared to improve with the pilot project in Niger, significant gaps in the implementation of diagnostic and treatment protocols were observed, particularly in monitoring vital signs, diagnostic examination and provider-patient communications. Quality improvements required significant investments in both fixed and variable costs; however, many of these costs were basic input requirements for operation. It is likely that optimal cost-effectiveness of services was not achieved because of the noted deficiencies in quality. In the test district of Boboye, the revenues from the copayments alone covered about 34% of the costs of medicines or about 20% of costs of drugs and administration. In Say, user fees covered about 50-55% of the costs of medicines or 35-40% of the amount spent on medicines and cost-recovery administration. In Boboye, taxes plus the additional copayments covered 120-180% of the cost of medicines, or 75-105% of the cost of medicines plus administration of cost recovery. Decentralized management and legal conditions in the pilot districts appeared to provide the necessary structure to ensure that the revenues and taxes collected would be channelled to pay for quality improvements. (+info)
R(5/404)
esearch note: does cost recovery for curative care affect preventive care utilization?
(+info)
Research note: price uncertainty and the demand for health care.(6/404)
User fees and drug pricing policies: a study at Harare Central Hospital, Zimbabwe.
(7/404)
In 1991, Zimbabwe introduced cost recovery measures as part of its programme of economic reforms, following a course taken by many developing countries. The system of user fees in public health care, aimed to 'protect and support the vulnerable groups' by exemption or incremental fees based on 4 income brackets. Drugs were charged at a percentage of the recommended retail price in the private sector. This study of 488 outpatients at a referral hospital in Harare examined how the new fee system functioned 6 months after its introduction. Patients were interviewed and their prescription records examined. Mean charges were determined for each fee category and revenue from drug charges was analyzed in relation to purchase cost to determine the gross profit. 31% of patients were exempted from all fees upon proof of monthly earnings of less than Z$150 (Z$5 = US$1). The remainder were classified into three fee-paying categories. The mean purchase cost for drug items was Z$3.89 per outpatient prescription. Outpatients paid a mean drug charge of Z$9.75 after exemption or discount. This was 2.5 times the cost price. The number of drug items obtained differed according to fee status: the fee-exempt category received a mean of 2.9 drug items compared with 1.9 drug items in the fee-paying categories. This difference originated at the point of prescribing. A number of practical problems in fee collection were noted. The drug pricing system generated high profit even after re-distribution to low-income users. This was attributed to economical and rationalized public sector drug procurement. Observation indicated that a proportion of the vulnerable were not effectively protected due to stringent requirements for proof of income. Appraisal of the fee policy indicated the need for more effective cross-subsidy and better administrative procedures; fee revenue should be directed towards improvement in quality of service. (+info)
The impact of physician economic incentives on admission rates of patients with ambulatory sensitive conditions: an analysis comparing two managed care structures and indemnity insurance.
(8/404)
The utilization of financial incentives to limit the use of health resources by primary care physicians represents a common reimbursement strategy by managed care organizations. These arrangements are virtually nonexistent with indemnity insurance. This analysis compares the hospitalization rates of patients with low-acuity medical conditions--ambulatory sensitive conditions (ASCs)--among three groups receiving care from primary care physicians. The physicians were compensated under different reimbursement mechanisms, in which incentives for reduced resource utilization varied. The groups can be described as follows: (1) a capitated for-profit group practice in which the physician partners have a relatively high economic incentive for lower utilization (group I); (2) physicians providing care under the auspices of three separate independent practice associations, in which the associations are capitated but the physicians are paid on a discounted fee-for-service basis (the associations also were included in this group) (group II); and (3) physicians who service patients whose care continues to be paid for by traditional indemnity insurance (group III). Financial incentives in the third group cohort were believed to be low to intermediate, and the physicians were assumed to have had no economic incentives to restrain their use of healthcare resources. Additional data analysis examined the role of emergency department utilization among patients in the groups. Group I patients ages 25 to 44 were admitted for ambulatory sensitive conditions at a significantly lower rate than were patients in groups II or III--0.8/1,000, 2.7/1,000, and 2.9/1,000, respectively. No difference was apparent in admission rates between patients in groups II and III. Overall emergency department utilization rates were lowest in the group I capitated panel (70/1,000), much higher in the group II independent practice association panel (363/1,000) and highest in the group III indemnity panel (466/1,000). Each of these rates was significantly different from the other. Both the ED utilization rate and ambulatory sensitive condition admission rate may have been affected by differences in socioeconomic status among the patient panels in the three groups. The overall effect of this variable on the two admission rates could not be isolated. (+info)